• Feminism and chivalry
    161 replies, posted
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34484601]Yes and that is literally the only thing, most women of which don't even do so it makes virtually no difference in regards to who is better at raising children.[/QUOTE] They also have a stronger bond with the child, since the child is apart of them for the better part of a year.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34484761]They also have a stronger bond with the child, since the child is apart of them for the better part of a year.[/QUOTE] The child isn't even conscious for most of that.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34484841]The child isn't even conscious for most of that.[/QUOTE] It's present more in the mother than the child, and either way the child is conscious for enough of it to develop a strong bond. This is why twins are often so close, they form a very strong bond while sharing the uterus and that bond continues and strengthens through childhood. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] This is what happens when humans are connected to each other in very profound ways.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34484761]They also have a stronger bond with the child, since the child is apart of them for the better part of a year.[/QUOTE] i don't think this is true i love and loved both my parents, but as a smaller child i probably was closer to my father - not loads closer, but appreciably
[QUOTE=Negrul1;34484889]i don't think this is true i love and loved both my parents, but as a smaller child i probably was closer to my father - not loads closer, but appreciably[/QUOTE] I'm talking coming right out of the uterus here, not the entire childhood. Your childhood bonds are influenced by a load of different things, from gender to who you spend most time with.
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;34476892]heres a great video which opened me up to some new sides of it all. Really worth the watch. [video=youtube;vp8tToFv-bA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA[/video][/QUOTE] Oh great, now all the people on the fence who don't know what they're talking about are going to start saying that feminism is bullshit. All this boils down to is another one of those lame arguments that feminism has done nothing but make us [i]prefer[/i] women over men, which will make a feminist furious. It's not about preference, it's about [b]equality[/b] and if you talk to a reasonable feminist, they'll tell you that there are idiots out there who call themselves "feminists" and give the movement a bad name. Yes, we've traditionally put women's [i]safety[/i] first, but the point is that they had no say in the matter. The fact that women usually take the safer roles and are given preference for survival does NOT make everything okay. Today, we've eased up on the gender roles a bit, but you've still got shit like rapists getting off easy because "she was asking for it" due to the way she dressed. Dismissing feminism as if women are only using it to take advantage of people is idiotic.
You can't have absolute gender equality and chivalry. Pick one or the other
You know, I have [I]literally never[/I] heard a feminist list "ill-begotten and harmful chivalry customs" as scourge that the patriarchy causes. They only seem to bring it up in response to criticism of bias. In all other cases, they only care about things that uniquely oppress women. Not that that isn't something that needs to be addressed, but it's kind of hard to take the definition that feminists tout seriously while they behave like this.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34486369]You can't have absolute gender equality and chivalry. Pick one or the other[/QUOTE] Who are you asking to choose?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34486444]Who are you asking to choose?[/QUOTE] The women, naturally [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] To clarify, either we maintain the status quote for women and keep chivalry, or we aggressively pursue absolute gender equality and disband chivalry
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34486483]The women, naturally [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] To clarify, either we maintain the status quote for women and keep chivalry, or we aggressively pursue absolute gender equality and disband chivalry[/QUOTE] How are those the only two options? It's not as clear-cut as 'disbanding chilvary' or 'absolute equality', because chilvary isn't a legislative issue, but legal equality is.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34487287]How are those the only two options? It's not as clear-cut as 'disbanding chilvary' or 'absolute equality', because chilvary isn't a legislative issue, but legal equality is.[/QUOTE] True, but I'm talking about at a societal level rather than on a purely governmental basis
[QUOTE=Negrul1;34484642] [img]http://i.imgur.com/9tkmw.png[/img] [/QUOTE] oh that's because, if you don't have an account on the something awful forums, it censors some words and one of the words that is censored is "rape", which is changed to "surprise sex" [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34486483]The women, naturally [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] To clarify, either we maintain the status quote for women and keep chivalry, or we aggressively pursue absolute gender equality and disband chivalry[/QUOTE] how can you collectively ask all women in the world a question and ask for a single answer? that's a terrible premise. genuine feminist are opposed to chivalry being a societal expectation, if that's the angle you're trying to work
the problem is rather than educating yourself and reading up a bit on what prominent feminists say, people would rather just grab a couple of easily defeated strawmen and carry on thinking it means feminism is shite.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34488130]how can you collectively ask all women in the world a question and ask for a single answer? that's a terrible premise. genuine feminist are opposed to chivalry being a societal expectation, if that's the angle you're trying to work[/QUOTE] Well obviously it's not practical. I'm speaking on ideological terms here. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;34488658]the problem is rather than educating yourself and reading up a bit on what prominent feminists say, people would rather just grab a couple of easily defeated strawmen and carry on thinking it means feminism is shite.[/QUOTE] Exactly. A lot of people on the internet find it sufficient to hear feminist jokes on Family Guy and from there make poorly constructed arguments about feminists desiring female superiority.
Here is my opinion. If a woman is about to come back and I have the door open, I will keep it open for her. If I see a woman trying to stab me with a knife, then the whole "don't hit a girl" idea is thrown out and I will defend myself. Just like I said in the other topic(about women and children first), a feminist is someone wanting equal rights, I don't have a problem with that. The other ones(the sexist or wanting more rights for women without drawbacks) is what I am against. If a woman wants higher pay, okay, as long as she does the same work and gets the same chances before being fired. And of course, the Selective Service System(or the draft), I am against it, but it is a necessary part of the US, and well, they should change it so all adults 18-25 have to apply, both male and female. Seems like most people believe that feminism is wanting equal rights, but no drawbacks, or more rights.
One of the first things I said to my partner when I met her was "You're a feminist? But you don't have really hairy legs and aren't hideous!?" Suffice to say, feminism is still quite necessary :v:
[QUOTE=ForcedDj;34491754] Just like I said in the other topic(about women and children first), a feminist is someone wanting equal rights, I don't have a problem with that. [B]The other ones(the sexist or wanting more rights for women without drawbacks) is what I am against.[/B] [/QUOTE] Those don't really exist. It's a straw(wo)man.
[QUOTE=ForcedDj;34491754]Here is my opinion. If a woman is about to come back and I have the door open, I will keep it open for her. If I see a woman trying to stab me with a knife, then the whole "don't hit a girl" idea is thrown out and I will defend myself. Just like I said in the other topic(about women and children first), a feminist is someone wanting equal rights, I don't have a problem with that. The other ones(the sexist or wanting more rights for women without drawbacks) is what I am against. If a woman wants higher pay, okay, as long as she does the same work and gets the same chances before being fired. And of course, the Selective Service System(or the draft), I am against it, but it is a necessary part of the US, and well, they should change it so all adults 18-25 have to apply, both male and female. Seems like most people believe that feminism is wanting equal rights, but no drawbacks, or more rights.[/QUOTE] If they don't want equal rights for both sexes, then they aren't a feminist. There is no feminist who desires superiority of one sex, because if they do they are not a feminist.
One of the things about feminism is that it also helps men by breaking them out of behaviors like treating women like objects/possessions and feeling entitled to sex (and the usual rage-fueled rape/murder if they don't get it when they want it). People like [url=http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/]this person[/url] (even though she does have a few good points) are missing a big point of it and are indirectly enabling the misogynistic men behaviors feminism wants to stop by making women look irrational and dumb.
I'd say I am a feminist, I believe women should have equal rights to men, that means the bad along with the good. Sometimes people get the wrong idea by "feminist" these days though which is sad, I don't hate or wish to suppress men in any way. As for things like holding doors open for women, I hold doors open for anyone who is directly behind me regardless of gender, why can't we just be nice to everyone?
[QUOTE=Patriarch;34482165]Pretty interesting video on payment differences between men and women, because I know that this will come up at some point. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow&feature=plcp&context=C3cf38e3UDOEgsToPDskI4Amx6jhmBaww9NjhsUSUZ[/media][/QUOTE] woah for every dollar a man makes a women makes 75 cents? thats not fucking fair at all that only leaves the man with 25 cents
Well, I never saw myself as a leftist/feminist but neither as a sexist, but it belongs to my very believes that the only difference beetween man and women is the roll in the reproduction and some minor, irrelevant biologic differencies. Well, but still I'm 100 % anti-gays/trans etc. They are just disabled in my eyes, because what is the defintion of disability: A dissorder of the biologic functionality from birth. And their case it their sexuality what has no cause and no function, because the biologic funtion of sex is reproduction not fun and enjoyment - that is an biologic/evolutionary invention to motivate us to reproduce.
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34509763]Well, I never saw myself as a leftist/feminist but neither as a sexist, but it belongs to my very believes that the only difference beetween man and women is the roll in the reproduction and some minor, irrelevant biologic differencies. Well, but still I'm 100 % anti-gays/trans etc. They are just disabled in my eyes, because what is the defintion of disability: A dissorder of the biologic functionality from birth. And their case it their sexuality what has no cause and no function, because the biologic funtion of sex is reproduction not fun and enjoyment - that is an biologic/evolutionary invention to motivate us to reproduce.[/QUOTE] so you're saying that gays and transexuals are disabled? Just because something meets a definition doesn't mean it applies.
[QUOTE=Contag;34492123]One of the first things I said to my partner when I met her was "You're a feminist? But you don't have really hairy legs and aren't hideous!?" Suffice to say, feminism is still quite necessary :v:[/QUOTE] This is a good example of the things people need to read about if they want to stand up for equality and have the right attitude. It's really easy to say that you support feminism, LGBT rights, race equality, etc, but in any of these subjects there are a lot of misconceptions and shitty ideas floating around, and you just have to listen to a lot of different people and pay attention when a supposedly "feminist" (for e.g.) point of view draws a lot of negative comments. Just some examples of the kind of things you hear a lot that you don't want to find yourself doing: -Saying that someone doesn't LOOK like something: feminist, homosexual, promiscuous/not, anorexic, etc. -Saying that you "hate the way gays act" as if they're all the same -Telling girls that if they want to get the "right guy" they don't have to wear revealing clothing. This is NOT "advice," it's telling women what they should wear. -Assuming that if someone has an eating disorder their appearance will reflect it. It's these specific little things that you have to weed out of your perspective. [QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34509763]Well, I never saw myself as a leftist/feminist but neither as a sexist, but it belongs to my very believes that the only difference beetween man and women is the roll in the reproduction and some minor, irrelevant biologic differencies. Well, but still I'm 100 % anti-gays/trans etc. They are just disabled in my eyes, because what is the defintion of disability: A dissorder of the biologic functionality from birth. And their case it their sexuality what has no cause and no function, because the biologic funtion of sex is reproduction not fun and enjoyment - that is an biologic/evolutionary invention to motivate us to reproduce.[/QUOTE] All you're doing is looking down on them. The most respected medical organizations have said that homosexuality is not a disorder and does not impair a person's basic ability to function and live a happy life, and advise against trying to treat it like a disorder. It poses no problems for a progressive, modern society. The fact that they don't reproduce is trivial and a poor argument against it.
I think there is a main difference between "chivalry" and feminism. They are both very different concepts and should not be compared to each other on a same level. Although people use both concepts and compare, combine or use them as arguments. Treating a person nicely is a common thing and seen as gentle and polite. For instance if you treat a lady nice and such, it is just a gesture. Besides maybe you are (sexually) interested in that particular person and therefore be nicer. It is simply a social act. Personally I also treat guys nice, I try to be nice to anyone. I do not consider this behavior related to feminism. Feminism should be considered in a political level. Equality in society such as same salary, human rights, right to vote, laws to men apply to women etc. Not by some social interactions that have no real significance. But I think that people who are generally not so informed about this topic simply rely on stereotypes and other common thoughts to argue about it. Besides there are always dumb people making dumb assumptions and this whole topic is rather complex.
The problem with chivalry vs equality is that women generally want a man who makes them feel special. As such a man who is always nice will often not get the girl. Whereas an asshole often gets more attention due to his slightly better disposition to his ladyfriend. Furthermore Chivalry is really based upon the man courting a woman and protecting her from whatever troubles or discomforts may face her. The thing is feminism for equality has achieved most if not all of its governmental goals. Legally women=men as there is no law forcing male disposability. Regardless women are at the point where chivalry is no longer rewarded or celebrated, and the treating of women as uninteresting disposable 'objects' of sexuality is more common. Sure the whole uptight no sex thing sucked but atleast it kept respect and allure in this sense.
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34509763] what is the defintion of disability[/QUOTE] the "defintion" of disability is an inability of a person to do certain things related in life. this can be an impairment or limitation in necessary bodily function, an activity limitation or difficulty in performing a task or action, and finally participation limitation or a problem with the participation in certain life situations. your "defintion" of disability is dumb and made up. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;34520454]The problem with chivalry vs equality is that women generally want a man who makes them feel special.[/QUOTE] ho ho ho you must be an expert in what women want. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;34520454]As such a man who is always nice will often not get the girl.[/QUOTE] oh boy [QUOTE=Zenreon117;34520454]Whereas an asshole often gets more attention due to his slightly better disposition to his ladyfriend. [/QUOTE] swing and a miss... [QUOTE=Zenreon117;34520454]Regardless women are at the point where chivalry is no longer rewarded or celebrated, and the treating of women as uninteresting disposable 'objects' of sexuality is more common.[/QUOTE] bullshit. women were always treated as uninteresting disposable objects. it's only recently in history that women were actually allowed to vote and participate in the public. chivalry is treating a woman like a little lamb that needs to be protected and that sexist attitude permeates every single thing a woman could do. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;34520454]Sure the whole uptight no sex thing sucked but atleast it kept respect and allure in this sense.[/QUOTE] yeah no thanks, i'm pretty sure people would feel a lot more respected if they weren't told what to do and who to sleep with.
[QUOTE=junker|154;34514828]I think there is a main difference between "chivalry" and feminism. They are both very different concepts and should not be compared to each other on a same level. Although people use both concepts and compare, combine or use them as arguments.[/QUOTE] Chivalry is a by-product of a male oriented power-structure and feminism is a movement which promotes a gender neutral power-structure. You are correct in extrapolating the differences but they are comparable since both are products of different approaches towards gender structure.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;34520454]The problem with chivalry vs equality is that women generally want a man who makes them feel special.[/QUOTE] Uh, men want women that can make them feel special too. Which means chivalry should work universally between and across sexes/genders.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.